Kidnapping justifies lethal force?

AR15_fanatic said:
Good discussion, but I think we're framing the scenario differently in our minds. I picture someone snatching the child and running away - forcing you to take a shot at a moving target at X yards away. Again, you are the #1 shot in the country, so obviously you will make the shot. I'm just offering my opinion for the other guys here (not you) who might not be as highly trained!

There's no point debating a point blank opportunity, I'm in agreement there.
Click to expand...

A) I don't live with my head up my ass, so someone snatching my child is going to have to try very hard.

B) If I don't shoot and my child disappears, she's as good as dead. You seem to be the only fool here who does not understand that.

C) Given B) above, I will do whatever it takes to stop the abduction. I will take a shot with 75% chance that my child will die, over doing nothing and guaranteeing her death.

D) Be a good witness? To what? to your child's face frozen in fear as she sees you get farther and farther away? F that.

There is NO way in hell that you could be a parent if your immediate response to seeing your child snatched from you is to call the cops.

As someone else said, anyone who screws with my child is in for a world of hurt, legal consequences be damned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if it's against the law it would not matter. I would spend the rest of my life behind bars to prevent my kids from being abducted.
I don't even see why this would be a question
 
Yeah i wouldnt hesitate for a seccond if it was my child or someone elses no parent of another child being obducted would scold you if you will for saving there child... being prosicuted by the state is another issue i mean this is mass we live in.... laws need to be changed especially where we can and cant carry but i def say fire away
 
JoeyD said:
Even if it's against the law it would not matter. I would spend the rest of my life behind bars to prevent my kids from being abducted.
I don't even see why this would be a question
Click to expand...

I can't speak for others, but I questioned it because the scenario (in my mind) presents a real chance for someone to shoot and kill their own child.

As others immediately noted, I don't have kids! This is probably why I'm focusing more on the stats, probabilities of making the shot, and personal consequences, vice the impacts to a family. At the end of the day, I think the discussion helped confirm how much the forum members love their kids.
 
JoeyD said:
Even if it's against the law it would not matter. I would spend the rest of my life behind bars to prevent my kids from being abducted.
I don't even see why this would be a question
Click to expand...

+1 No doubt about it. I would take every bit of hurt this world has to offer if it meant keeping my son safe.
 
AR15_fanatic said:
As others immediately noted, I don't have kids! This is probably why I'm focusing more on the stats, probabilities of making the shot, and personal consequences, vice the impacts to a family.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I came across too harshly, but you have to understand that none of what you are considering matters when it is your own blood at stake.

I used to be abortion neutral. That shit stopped when I witnessed the birth of my child.
 
AR15_fanatic said:
I can't speak for others, but I questioned it because the scenario (in my mind) presents a real chance for someone to shoot and kill their own child.

As others immediately noted, I don't have kids! This is probably why I'm focusing more on the stats, probabilities of making the shot, and personal consequences, vice the impacts to a family. At the end of the day, I think the discussion helped confirm how much the forum members love their kids.
Click to expand...

Before I had a kid, I understood why the 2A existed and had no problem with people owning guns. After I had a kid, I fully realized why people own guns.

In my mind, in a situation like a kidnapping, any laws that might apply to me if I shot someone trying to kidnap my child are superfluous. If my child disappears, I really won't give two sh!ts about what happens after because a world without my child isn't a world I really want to be in.
 
Last edited:
AR15_fanatic said:
I can't speak for others, but I questioned it because the scenario (in my mind) presents a real chance for someone to shoot and kill their own child.

As others immediately noted, I don't have kids! This is probably why I'm focusing more on the stats, probabilities of making the shot, and personal consequences, vice the impacts to a family. At the end of the day, I think the discussion helped confirm how much the forum members love their kids.
Click to expand...

Frankly, the potential kidnapper would be extremely lucky if all I did was shoot him.

If you are worrying about kids you do not have yet, you are just ingraining yourself with a mindset that will cause you to fail if/when it happens.

I am confident enough in my abilities to take the shot, so I don't clutter my mind with useless "what if" scenarios. Potential out comes do not phase me. The only thing I think about is my course of action in certain situations, consequences be damned! If I know in my heart and mind that what I did was right, I don't care about what a bunch of bottom feeding low lifes put down on paper as being "Legal".

As long as the Big Man upstairs believes that what I do/did is justified, I can live with my actions.

The shooting may be righteous and justified, but you could still potentially face charges. So I adopted the following as my personal belief:

1) You can always replace the money.
2) You can find another job.
3) Unless it is pre-meditated murder, you will get out of jail.
4) You CANNOT replace your life or a loved one's life!

When it comes to my family, I only follow one set of laws, MINE!
 
AR15_fanatic said:
I can't speak for others, but I questioned it because the scenario (in my mind) presents a real chance for someone to shoot and kill their own child.

As others immediately noted, I don't have kids! This is probably why I'm focusing more on the stats, probabilities of making the shot, and personal consequences, vice the impacts to a family. At the end of the day, I think the discussion helped confirm how much the forum members love their kids.
Click to expand...

Please stop referring to STATS that, so far, you've been unwilling to provide a source for.

Relying on stats is a reasonable support of an argument, but not if they're your wild ass guesses.
.
 
Last edited:
AR15_fanatic said:
... This is probably why I'm focusing more on the stats, probabilities of making the shot, and personal consequences, vice the impacts to a family. ...
Click to expand...

The first question is where you came up with those dubious statistics. As someone suggested, most stats people spout in discussions such as this are pulled out of thin air or other darker and smellier places. Without a credible source, one has to presume that's where they came from.

Ken
 
I don't think anyone here would stand by while some sicko tries to snatch any kid... in a situation where that's YOUR kid (or anyone else you love that's being targeted by a predator) I think the decision would be just slightly slower than the bullet(s).

I think what our friend might be getting at here is that outside of these specific criteria the situation might be a little more complicated. Like if you saw some kid you don't know being dragged into a car by someone you don't know. That's the kind of situation that could put a law abiding LTC holder and would be hero behind bars for capping some estranged drunk dad trying to snatch his own kid. I think if you google kidnapping stats you'll find that the above senario is by far more common than child predator types, and that in these senarios the child is almost always ok (aside from having scumbag parents).

I'm not trolling here... you are all right that when it comes to the people I love, I'm going to put anyone trying to hurt them down without a second thought. I just think it makes sense to be very careful in situations where one doesn't have all the facts.

Edit: Statistics on kidnapping here: http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-mcstatistics.htm
 
KMaurer said:
The first question is where you came up with those dubious statistics. As someone suggested, most stats people spout in discussions such as this are pulled out of thin air or other darker and smellier places. Without a credible source, one has to presume that's where they came from.

Ken
Click to expand...

I apologize for not responding sooner.

The statistics are from "Kids Fighting Chance," an organization endorsed by the FBI. Take that with a grain of salt, however, every stat mentioned was from that website.

I'm going to take a look at what I posted and get you a better answer shortly.
 
AR15_fanatic said:
I apologize for not responding sooner.

The statistics are from "Kids Fighting Chance," an organization endorsed by the FBI. Take that with a grain of salt, however, every stat mentioned was from that website.

I'm going to take a look at what I posted and get you a better answer shortly.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything on their website that relates to the stats you spouted off. If anything the stats shown would support taking the shot.

http://www.kidsfightingchance.com/stats.php
 
06LemansC6 said:
I don't see anything on their website that relates to the stats you spouted off. If anything the stats shown would support taking the shot.

http://www.kidsfightingchance.com/stats.php
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, I don't want to come off as a liar, so let me explain. Also understood; stats mean nothing, family means everything!



I said there's only a 0.5% chance an of an abduction leading to murder, but everyone else thinks it seems more like 50-70%!!! What gives!

Per the website:

“Of child victims of "stereotypical kidnappings, "40 percent are killed, 4 percent are never found”

Ok, but:

In 1999 there were 115 “stereotypical kidnappings”

Interesting?

So, 2002 there were 69,000 “abductions” which is what I believe we’re concerned with, given we all agree there is limited information in the scenario and a split-second decision is being made. (this is actually .17% of a chance)

I stated .5%, why?

Massaging the data? Maybe. Lets assume there were less “abductions” in 1999, say about 50,000? I think that’s fair. Lets also assume that another 40,000 are easily (split-second mind you) identifiable as someone not willing to kill the child. Consider your ability to ID a non-killer... So 40% are killed, of a pool of (after the fact) "stereotypical" kidnappings, means only 46 murdered. So 46 divided by our final, reasonable and heavily reduced pool, means about .5% of abductions, relevant to our scenario, result in a murder.

OK so .5% means what?

It just means that, given hindsight is 20/20, its much less like that an “abduction” will lead to murder. This is reasonable because, in this scenario, there’s no investigation, there’s no analysis, there’s nothing but the fact that someone is “abducting” a child, hence it gets immediately classified as an abduction and put in the 69k pot, which I feel like was reduced with a decent logic.


Again, who the EFF cares! Just don't think that I'm crazy or lying without reason.
 
Last edited:
swampy said:
But this is the state that sent teddy kennedy to washington for nearly 50 years. I don't know if I would trust a jury from certain parts of this state with that decision.
Click to expand...

Then waive your right to trial by jury. I would seriously consider than option with my attorney if I found myself accused of anything relating to a firearm anywhere except outside of maybe Texas.
 
AR15_fanatic said:
Nonetheless, I don't want to come off as a liar, so let me explain. Also understood; stats mean nothing, family means everything!



I said there's only a 0.5% chance an of an abduction leading to murder, but everyone else thinks it seems more like 50-70%!!! What gives!

Per the website:

“Of child victims of "stereotypical kidnappings, "40 percent are killed, 4 percent are never found”

Ok, but:

In 1999 there were 115 “stereotypical kidnappings”

Interesting?

So, 2002 there were 69,000 “abductions” which is what I believe we’re concerned with, given we all agree there is limited information in the scenario and a split-second decision is being made. (this is actually .17% of a chance)

I stated .5%, why?

Massaging the data? Maybe. Lets assume there were less “abductions” in 1999, say about 50,000? I think that’s fair. Lets also assume that another 40,000 are easily (split-second mind you) identifiable as someone not willing to kill the child. Consider your ability to ID a non-killer... So 40% are killed, of a pool of (after the fact) "stereotypical" kidnappings, means only 46 murdered. So 46 divided by our final, reasonable and heavily reduced pool, means about .5% of abductions, relevant to our scenario, result in a murder.

OK so .5% means what?

It just means that, given hindsight is 20/20, its much less like that an “abduction” will lead to murder. This is reasonable because, in this scenario, there’s no investigation, there’s no analysis, there’s nothing but the fact that someone is “abducting” a child, hence it gets immediately classified as an abduction and put in the 69k pot, which I feel like was reduced with a decent logic.


Again, who the EFF cares! Just don't think that I'm crazy or lying without reason.
Click to expand...
None of that means jack shit to me.

Anyone who tries to take away my child, for whatever the reason, is going to find himself bleeding on the ground fairly quickly. I really don't give a shit if they are performing an "abduction", "stereotypical kidnapping", or whatever else some bullshit special interest group cares to call it.
 
Timber said:
i'll take it a step further and say that anyone who tries to take anyone else's child is gonna find themself in the same situation. [wink]
Click to expand...

So if you saw two random people putting some kid in a trunk and driving off you'd try and get a clean shot off?
 
AR15_fanatic said:
So if you saw two random people putting some kid in a trunk and driving off you'd try and get a clean shot off?
Click to expand...


Good question. I guess it depends on what I seen up to that point and how far away from them I was. Am I walking by, driving by or what.
 
AR15_fanatic said:
It just means that, given hindsight is 20/20, its much less like that an “abduction” will lead to murder. This is reasonable because, in this scenario, there’s no investigation, there’s no analysis, there’s nothing but the fact that someone is “abducting” a child, hence it gets immediately classified as an abduction and put in the 69k pot, which I feel like was reduced with a decent logic.
Click to expand...

From the same website:

More than 1/5 of the children reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in nonfamily abductions are found dead. - Smithsonian, Oct. 95
Click to expand...

Sounds like a much higher number than 0.5% That number would be higher than 20% and those are only the ones that are FOUND. I suspect the actual percentage to be much higher.

As I said earlier in this thread, if it were my child I will do EVERYTHING in my power to stop it. If i were carrying I'd take the shot. If I weren't I would put myself between my child and the scumbags. At that moment I am not thinking about myself, I am only thinking about getting my child to safety. Anyone with children knows what I'm talking about. Just about every parent has at least one scary moment where they react to something scary happening to their child. It could be choking, an accident etc. but as a parent your only focus at that moment is making your child safe. It can't be explained in words to someone without children.
 
06LemansC6 said:
Why wouldn't you? Nothing good can come from two random people stuffing a kid into a trunk.
Click to expand...

In MA, the std for 3rd party assistance is to understand the nature of the relationship between the other two parties in order to understand the context of the actions occurring between the two. ie; are two kids f'n around and making it look like one is beating the other senseless, etc. If you have two adult obviously stuffing a kid into a trunk, they are at the very least committing child endangerment and that I believe is a felony. If you were to detain them at gun point, I think you would have a decent argument to make in your defense.

The problem is if you see some kid screaming "I don't want to go." then are they being kidnapped? Are they a little brat? etc... If they are your kid then you know the relationship between the two. As someone has pointed out, most abductions are, contrary to popular belief, not stranger abductions but non-custodial parents either not returning the children or swiping them from school, etc.

So the trunk example is as absurd as the shooting a family member example. But you can see how most people are talking about stranger abductions and this guy keep bandying about irrelevant stats. So ARfanatic, drop your BS stats and give details about your hypothetical so everyone can discuss the same thing instead of 16 different assumed scenarios as they envision them in their heads.
 
AR15_fanatic said:
So, 2002 there were 69,000 “abductions” which is what I believe we’re concerned with, given we all agree there is limited information in the scenario and a split-second decision is being made. (this is actually .17% of a chance)
Click to expand...

Ok, smart guy, so how many of those 69,000 abductions were witnessed? Specifically, how many were witnessed by a parent?

You don't know, do you? That's why you are making up statistics. Just because you started with real numbers does not mean the numbers in your conclusions aren't made up. You are making assumptions about the data to produce a desired outcome that is almost completely irrelevant to the question that was originally posed.

I am not going to make up numbers here, because I don't know the answer either, but I will posit that in cases where a child is boldly taken from in front of a parent despite cries of "Hey! Stop! That's my kid!" the odds of that child being returned or found alive are substantially less than the 0.17% that you wrongly calculate. Think about it.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Reasonable Physical force to Stop or prevent unlawful Trespass?
Replies
5
Views
597
drgrant
drgrant
Forced surrender of bump stocks in MA EOPSS letter, per GOAL
15 16 17
Replies
492
Views
47K
tencara
tencara
You can resist excessive force during arrest. In theory.
Replies
6
Views
1K
whatluck
whatluck
Task Force on the Safekeeping of a Distressed Persons Firearms mtg
Replies
6
Views
1K
voidoid
V
Philosophical question - use of force
Replies
21
Views
3K
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom